To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, I don’t think you know what those words mean.

You are simply wrong. The entire argument makes clear what comparison I am making:

Objective historians today must admit there was no resurrected Jesus—no animated corpse rose from the grave to hang out and have dinner with his followers. That man is not historical.16 Yet he became so, within a mere generation or two. And the original, mythical version of him (who was entirely imaginary, as Paul reveals in Galatians 1:11–16 and 1 Corinthians 15:3–8) was erased. But if a ‘historical’ Risen Jesus could be invented, and that version narratively erase the original (the one of mere fleeting dreams and visions), then so could a ‘historical’ Jesus prior to that be invented, and that version narratively erase the original. We cannot allow the one sequence of events to have happened (as plainly it did), while denying the other could. The question thus falls to the evidence: does the preponderance of evidence argue more for the traditional account, or this other? Of course the historicity of the risen Jesus can be discarded as a matter of science; whereas the historicity of the Jesus prior would be entirely plausible. But other than that, the evidence for them is the same, in every methodologically pertinent respect.

No one could possibly be confused as you claim. The argument is very clear. Its premises and flow and distinctions are very clear.

McGrath cannot allow himself to understand

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it” — Upton Sinclair

Also if either OHJ or New Paradigm got scant attention, that really speaks to a big issue in the field. If someone produced a peer reviewed book arguing that the founder of the religion didn’t actually exist, that’s something everyone should read! As far as I am aware, in Bhuddist studies, people aren’t threatened for saying they think Bhudda didn’t exist and people do at least read each other’s writings.

And fields that never overturn consensuses are not in a good shape, imo. I think history is a productive field, not perfect, but a lot more productive than Biblical studies, in Spanish history, there’s been a lot of work for example that has shown that the last Hapsburg King Charles II (Carlos II), who was thought to be severely mentally disabled due to inbreeding, actually wasn’t and the Hapsburg Empire wasn’t on the verge of collapse in the late 17th century. Previous historians had believed French propaganda too much and not other sources, i.e letters written in his own hand where he plotted with his illegitimate half-brother to get rid of his mothers favourites, ambassadors mentioning him talking at length about complex diplomatic and military matters. He might have had chronic fatigue syndrome (IMO) but he certainly didn’t have an extremely low IQ.

I think when these things happen, ideological bias has to be the explanation. A good example of something that should have been accepted long before it was, was Jefferson’s black family. It was later proven by DNA evidence that he was the father of Sally Hemming’s children, but the documentary evidence was already really good and I think reading it, you couldn’t conclude otherwise that he was the father of her children. I think it’s clear what kind of biases could have been involved here (including ones that aren’t particularly racist, i.e people who are Jefferson admirers not wanting to concede his faults).

I think as you often hint, siloing is a big issue in academia too. We know the Biblical studies examples (i.e people dismissing Macdonald’s hypotheses for silly reasons because they don’t know how education worked in antiquity), and you get it a lot in linguistics imo (my other big field of interest). A lot of people doing “generative linguistics” don’t know anything about the research done in neurolinguistics and vice-versa. There is also a lot of talking past each other and a lot of strawmanning and it hasn’t done the field a whole lot of good.

I’m pushing back out of respect. You have the amazing gift of clarity and seeing through bullshit. That makes you potentially blind to when your own words induce ambiguity, as I think they do here. Lee me try again, now I’m more awake and my eyes are slightly more functional.

First caveat, I’m not trying to argue for McGrath in any way. I’m merely explaining why I parsed your passage differently than apparently you intended. Second caveat: even if McGrath encountered the same parsing error, he still makes several errors — but perhaps my analysis may shed light on how one of his mistakes may have been more innocent.

Re-citing you…

Objective historians today must admit there was no resurrected Jesus….  That man [1] is not historical Yet he [1] became so [2], within a mere generation or two. And the original, mythical version of him [3??]

I refactored empahsis here and removed your editorial note. The numbered labels are my interpretation of the version of Jesus you are writing about. (This is done differently than in my original reply – sorry).

Which is version #3? Well, “mythical” contrasts it from historical. So it’s not #2. It could be #1, but “original” does some work here. Are you using “original” to contrast it with #1 or to distinguish it from #2? Or using both qualifiers to discuss a new version, #3?

The words that follow both clarify and declarify…

(who was entirely imaginary, as Paul reveals in Galatians 

and my being quite familiar with your older work, I assumed you meant the non-resurrected Christ, Why? Because: Paul claimed in those passages to have interacted with a spiritual entity known as Christ, and for him, that is the “real” version, the one everyone after Paul actually follows until a historical version partially supplants him. But is Paul’s version mythological? I’m not certain if you’re saying that or not.

Your assertion that Paul’s version is “imaginary” also does some extra work here. Imaginary is not equal to mythological. Imaginary is also not necessarily equal to “not real”. Eg, we’ve previously met in space-time, but we are now conversing with each other in an imaginary way: I’m imagining you as I write. I don’t presume that’s how you meant “imaginary” here. But only that you could be conflating it with mythological #1 or referring to a new version #3.

But even if interpret this differently, say, from a Historicist’s perspective, I get the idea that “original version” is the historical non-resurrected Jesus, which you claim (and I lean towards) is mythical. Thus, #3, ie, the “original, mythical version” is the non-resurrected Jesus.

So, when you then wrote “as Paul reveals”, it suggests or indicates that the basis of your conclusion that Jesus version #3 is mythical (1) originates from your assessment of Paul’s writings , and (2) that Paul intentionally indicated that his version of Jesus is imaginary.

That’s how I parsed it here. But I know you well enough to know that this is not representative of your argument.

Sorry to say it so bluntly, but your weird theories aren’t relevant to any point being made here.

The moral outrage of what has just happened, and the field’s complicity in it, should not be ignored in favor of rando peeving.

Read the room.